88h88 posted:It's just a few friends on holiday at a biking resort, the corner is awfully marked though and they all just go sailing off it... Haha, that's the one. It's perfect. The first guy arcing out of site, the other dude at the bottom, helpless to stop what's coming, and the last dude slamming into the ground and sliding into the second, combine for slapstick perfection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Idgi?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Zipperelli. posted:Idgi? it's a sport called "basketball"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Dude spent a bit too long slamming the floorboards and so the other dude just passed him
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Basketball equivalent of that scene where Indiana Jones just shoots the guy swinging the sword around all cool like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
E: .
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
I, too, am inspired by Florence + The Machine's videos
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
There is a a place for elaborate, prepared free kick setpieces The Vanarama National League is not it http://i.imgur.com/IlwX7fO.webm
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
yaffle posted:No he's not, he's sitting next to Russell Brand, I'm loving amazing if I'm sitting next to Russell Brand. Both Noel Fielding and Russell Brand have amazing chemistry with just about anyone, but when they get paired together, it's nothing short of magical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Inco posted:Both Noel Fielding and Russell Brand have amazing chemistry with just about anyone, but when they get paired together, it's nothing short of magical. Admit you want to be the filling in that meat sandwich
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
I would unironically love to see the callouts and ensuing excuses the initial post inspired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Maybe he's the Heisenburg of cupcakes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
sudonim posted:I would unironically love to see the callouts and ensuing excuses the initial post inspired.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Prenton posted:There is a a place for elaborate, prepared free kick setpieces Proclick, drat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/3742933/ballarat-bus-crashes-into-melbourne-bridge-audio/?cs=61 Oops! This is a bit different from the old 7'10" bridge. Looks like he was off by a clear 2 feet. (e: nobody died)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
This is fine. Everything is fine. How are you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Aerdan posted:People like owning valuable things. A replica 1860 $20 gold coin has no market value beyond its weight in gold. A genuine, unaltered 1860 $20 gold coin is much more valuable because it has history and provenance from that period. Same applies to literally any other historical artifact, particularly if there are people interested in owning such artifacts. Yeah, objects don't "have history", history is not a property of matter. Some people just arbitrarily decide that a thing is worth more money because it's old. Genuine old things are not inherently more valuable than identical reproductions, unless you mean to historians who can learn something from them. But most things that are valuable because they're old are not useful for learning anything, they're just old. Like, no one's upset because that coin could have been studied to learn something about the past, it was just an old coin. You could make a new one and it would be just as good (except in the minds of people who attach arbitrary value to old things).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Hubbardologist posted:This is fine. Everything is fine. The two Shiba Inu just look so pleased with themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Hubbardologist posted:This is fine. Everything is fine. I love that because it linked to this: http://www.sadanduseless.com/2015/05/men-and-cats/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Yeah, objects don't "have history", history is not a property of matter. Some people just arbitrarily decide that a thing is worth more money because it's old. Genuine old things are not inherently more valuable than identical reproductions, unless you mean to historians who can learn something from them. But most things that are valuable because they're old are not useful for learning anything, they're just old. Like, no one's upset because that coin could have been studied to learn something about the past, it was just an old coin. You could make a new one and it would be just as good (except in the minds of people who attach arbitrary value to old things). The schadenfreude in this case isn't on coin collectors, it's on the speculator who bought a rare coin and thought he could fix it up to increase the value. A stupid person jumped feet-first into a world he didn't understand and lost a ton of money as a result. It'd be like some rich idiot buying a copy of Action Comics #1 and then being confused why it hasn't doubled in value after he took a sharpie and circled every appearance of Superman. Anyway here is a classic related schadenfruede https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnsizkVjGm8
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
One day, if it survives the rigors of time, even the useless garbage you have in your house will be especially valuable or precious to someone. This is the guiding force behind both archaeologists and hoarders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Yeah, objects don't "have history", history is not a property of matter. Some people just arbitrarily decide that a thing is worth more money because it's old. Genuine old things are not inherently more valuable than identical reproductions, It's almost as if scarce things that people can't produce more of command a higher price than something that just anyone can churn out. Perhaps the inability to increase the "supply" of the good has some kind of influence on how the price and demand interact? But no, that's obviously a silly idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
For terms you goddam loving goons can understand, its why Chrono Trigger costs like 500 bucks on eBay
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Jaramin posted:One day, if it survives the rigors of time, even the useless garbage you have in your house will be especially valuable or precious to someone. Also a great burn on Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
iRend posted:http://www.thecourier.com.au/story/3742933/ballarat-bus-crashes-into-melbourne-bridge-audio/?cs=61 What the gently caress?? Wouldn't that bridge be about eye level with the driver?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Jabor posted:It's almost as if scarce things that people can't produce more of command a higher price than something that just anyone can churn out. But you can make more of them. The only reason people don't is because there's an arbitrary distinction between new ones and old ones. It's not difficult to make exact reproductions of old coins, it's just that no one bothers to make them because no one wants them. Same with stuff like paintings. There are people who can make a copy of a valuable painting so good that no one can tell it from the original without specialised equipment, but this somehow doesn't devalue the original. It's not related to scarcity at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:For terms you goddam loving goons can understand, its why Chrono Trigger costs like 500 bucks on eBay Earthbound too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
TheDon01 posted:What the gently caress?? Yeah but they came from Ballarat so the driver was probably drunk
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Yeah, objects don't "have history", history is not a property of matter. Some people just arbitrarily decide that a thing is worth more money because it's old. Genuine old things are not inherently more valuable than identical reproductions, unless you mean to historians who can learn something from them. But most things that are valuable because they're old are not useful for learning anything, they're just old. Like, no one's upset because that coin could have been studied to learn something about the past, it was just an old coin. You could make a new one and it would be just as good (except in the minds of people who attach arbitrary value to old things). Objects certainly have history if you know where to look for it. In the case of something like an undamaged coin, the object can tell quite a bit about minting processes in the period in a way that we can't from one that is more worn and in circulation - maybe they can figure out something about the minting die in use then? Granted, in this case it's unlikely that the coin can tell us anything that we don't already know, but there are lots of cool and creative scholars who have made careers out of figuring out how objects can speak to us in ways that aren't immediately obvious. I once saw a guy give a two-hour talk on how he was able to determine the production order a bunch of 15th century books by the same printer by looking at un-inked text impressions on blank pages (and there were lots of implications of that order for understanding how the print industry worked in that time and place). But in the 19th century, people had literally been cutting those kinds of blank pages out of books and throwing out the empty pages because they were rebinding and "restoring" the "damaged" texts. They had no idea that useful information was contained in those seemingly empty surfaces. It's the exact logic that led this doufus to his decisions. And we never know what kinds of cool methods technology and ingenuity will offer to us in the future, either. This is why scholars/antiques roadshow always beg laypeople to not restore or fix anything - because once information like that is destroyed, we can't get it back. Honestly, the guy's $200,000 is the smallest shame in the whole situation. I'm glad that an idiot like him took the blow in the wallet. He should be fined another $200,000 on top of it for the damage he has done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
it's astounding to me that Tiggum hasn't even successfully passed the Turing Test yet and somehow people still argue with him
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Objects certainly have history if you know where to look for it. In the case of something like an undamaged coin, the object can tell quite a bit about minting processes in the period in a way that we can't from one that is more worn and in circulation - maybe they can figure out something about the minting die in use then? Granted, in this case it's unlikely that the coin can tell us anything that we don't already know, but there are lots of cool and creative scholars who have made careers out of figuring out how objects can speak to us in ways that aren't immediately obvious. And I specifically addressed this point in the post you quoted and replied to. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:But you can make more of them. The only reason people don't is because there's an arbitrary distinction between new ones and old ones. It's not difficult to make exact reproductions of old coins, it's just that no one bothers to make them because no one wants them. This is called 'Counterfeiting', and the Secret Service takes a dim view of it. You can't just 'make more'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
Neraren posted:This is called 'Counterfeiting', and the Secret Service takes a dim view of it. You can't just 'make more'. Why does the President's security detail care about money counterfeiting? Surely that would fall under the purview of the Department of the Treasury that prints legal currency, or perhaps the FBI who are in charge of federal crimes? goddamn obama sticking his fingers in everything
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Why does the President's security detail care about money counterfeiting? Surely that would fall under the purview of the Department of the Treasury that prints legal currency, or perhaps the FBI who are in charge of federal crimes? don't care if this is supposed to be a joke or not cause it's poo poo, but the Secret Service aren't just in charge of protecting the president, they spend most of their time policing financial crime
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Why does the President's security detail care about money counterfeiting? Surely that would fall under the purview of the Department of the Treasury that prints legal currency, or perhaps the FBI who are in charge of federal crimes? The Secret Service was founded in 1865 to combat counterfeiting (it was estimated that 1/3 of US dollars in circulation were counterfeit at that time). They expanded to a federal police service when the US Marshals didn't have the manpower to do their job as well as they could, and after McKinley got assassinated in 1901 they were informally asked to also bodyguard the President. This was made official the next year. So it's actually the other way around: a federal agency made to investigate counterfeiting just picked up the slack for everything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
well at least i could contribute to the thread topic with my own incompetence you're welcome (I genuinely did not know that)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 07:11
|
|